Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Teamsters Can’t Find an Endorsement or Jimmy Hoffa
The Teamsters conducted a membership poll to determine an endorsement for a candidate for President. The first poll was not the result Teamster leadership wanted.
See, what happened was that the Teamsters promised everyone that they were going to do top-to-bottom survey of their membership and make the endorsement based upon the outcome. The result?
Trump 60%, Kackler 35%, other/undecided 5%
That was kind of embarrassing, so they ran an extensive phone survey instead, calling union stewards, union halls, the reliable political class ever-present in a union. That result?
Trump 60%, Kackler 35%, other/undecided 5%
The easy way out is not endorsing anyone. The Teamsters are one of the most powerful unions in the US but not as powerful as politicians in Blue cities and Blue states. Contending with Blue bureaucrats, as well as Blue judges in future labor legislation or possible criminal investigations if you endorse the wrong person may lead to retribution.
The rank-and-file union members have the advantage of the secret ballot even though all unions use part of their dues to support candidates that they do not support.
Published in Politics
It’s been reported that the Teamsters management’s statement was, essentially, we don’t have majority support for Harris, nor unanimous support for Trump, so we won’t endorse anyone.
I would call that a landslide.
At least they had the good graces to publish the results of their members so all can see the integrity of the teamster’s leadership w.r.t. earlier promises.
Excellent point.
During the 2016 Presidential campaign, I played golf with a fellow who frequented the course. He was a pipefitter and a union member- a nice guy. During the round, I asked him about the upcoming election. He was shy about his opinions and I, naturally, was not. So I asked him who he was voting for. He said, Clinton. In a friendly way, I chided him, “Why would you do that? Clinton has never created a single job in construction. She cares nothing about you. Trump is your natural ally. He’s built numerous terrific and large buildings, hired 10’s of thousands of union workers, and feels and exhibits great respect for the jobs you do.” He nodded in agreement and then said, “But I have to vote Democrat. I always have.”
I can relate. But I did vote for a Democrat once…probably more than once. I voted for Clinton for his second term ( Perot for the first) and, no doubt I voted for a Democrat Mayor at least once because there were nothing but Democrats running for the office. It’s difficult to break habits.
This is a point I wish we would help more conservatives to grasp: There are decent, sensible people among the Democrats. I think we should try to avoid the sweeping condemnation of Democrats as a group, and be careful to distinguish between the people who are driving the Democratic Party as a political organization, versus all those Americans who are simply Democrat by virtue of their birth or the environment in which they find themselves. I’ve known a lot of nice, sensible, middle-American Democrats working farms in Missouri and Kansas. I’m sure most of them are quietly voting for Trump.
Or they might be like even some people we see on Ricochet, voting Democrat – or not voting at all – because they think they “have to” while hoping/counting on the rest of us to do the “dirty work” for them and elect Trump. So they get the benefit while acting like they’re above it all.
It just goes to show that even the Teamsters management are scared of the Teamsters.
If there was a Trump presidential campaign, it might make something out of that news.
They’ve been starting to. Trump mentioned it on Gutfeld when he was on.
Good. I may have heard of a Gutfeld some time back. It’s a pretty vague memory, though. What about the Trump campaign, assuming there is one?
I don’t notice the campaign much, but there’s no reason I need to. And I hope they’re not wasting time and money trying to convince ME.
https://ricochet.com/1709227/trump-on-gutfeld-tonight/
Given that Gutfeld! is, by various rankings, the most popular late night and/or cable news program, and has been near that for the last couple of years, and that his clips on YouTube routinely garner hundreds of thousands of views within a few hours of release, I’ve got to assume that you’re being facetious about the Gutfeld thing.
But if not, I have to ask: How would you know about the presence or absence of Trump’s presidential campaign?
I mean, where would you expect to encounter it? How would you assess its vitality? What indicators are you seeing or not seeing that lead you to think it isn’t ongoing?
Somewhat unrelated but darkly amusing: If you ever wondered whether Wikipedia is a leftist spin-factory (and it is), you can find a beautiful illustration of its bias by comparing the pages for the Trump Campaign and the Harris Campaign. Trump’s page savages Trump; Harris’ page talks about Beyonc-ay.
One of my favorite Beyonc-ay references:
How am I supposed to know about stuff like that? Johnny Carson was still on when I last spent time with TV. (I am aware that he’s dead now. I thought TV was, too.)
YouTube. Explained here.
I looked it up. I was done with television for over a decade before Johnny Carson officially retired.
You missed a lot of good stuff. Although if you’re seeing stuff on a computer monitor instead of a TV, it’s still “watching TV” just with different hardware.
I avoid anything from the legacy networks or from celebrityland. Who has time for that garbage when there is interesting stuff to watch? There is zero overlap with what’s on TV unless something has happened to TV that I haven’t heard about.
Taxi was good, Cheers was good, Night Court… lots more.
Threshold had a few flaws, but was good/interesting…
I think I once or twice walked past a TV where Cheers was on. Or maybe it was Seinfeld. Not sure. I stopped a minute to see what was going on, and then kept going. If sent to prison I’d much rather be put to work on a chain gang than have to be around stuff like that. At least the chain gang might have entertaining moments.
I thought Seinfeld was pointless too. But that doesn’t mean EVERYTHING was bad.
“Seinfeld” is a comedy of manners; a form that went out of style when manners did.
You see one television program you’ve seen ’em all.
I heard on the radio that a number of locals in swing states are endorsing Kamala. Local apparatchiks following orders from the national union bosses.
True, the locals probably aren’t deigning to actually consult with their members.
A lovely but increasingly anachronistic thought. Honorable people could disagree about Nixon-Humphrey but post-Obama politics is about demonizing us, curtailing our basic rights, erasing national identity and western culture. To vote for that out of some stale affection for the party of Scoop Jackson, Pat Moynihan and even Bill Clinton is nuts. An enormous effort is underway to silence polite exchanges. The Orwellian repackaging of a singularly stupid woman as an shing agent of change would be funny if the joke were not on America.
He’s still on — I watch Carson reruns on Plex regularly.
There’s also a Carson channel with both complete shows and selected clips, on Roku, which is free for the basic service level.
Roku also has “This Old House” channels and “Joy Of Painting” channels and lots more, all free.
How poorly are the democrats fundraising? They cant even afford to buy off the Teamsters.
The payments usually flow the other way.